ÿWPCc   ¶#ÆÕ %åU.ëU.U *G 0êq 0&[ õŒ¹): Apple LaserWriter IIfŒ© í­ßWÒFÇ<© ï8Ýõ} ÒAbRshÊÎAPLW2F.PRSìhhhhhhhhðÿHÀ›I„œ{#|xX<@p¸ `(Courier<@p¸ `(Courier Times:ØØ ÿÿ8WP DefaultsÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ ÓÓÓÓVL°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:VÓÔ€XXÔÔ€XXÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ ÓÓÓÓVL°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:VÓÔ€XXÔÔ€XXÔÔ  Ô&$¡ òòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÓ  ÓÓVL°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:VÓÔ€XXÔ€Ô€ôôÔà àA€corrections€officer€had€discovered€the€plastic€bag€earlier€in€the€day€and,€upon€opening€it,€had€found€five€plastic€bottles€filled€with€liquid€that€smelled€like€alcohol.€€The€officerððs€superior€had€instructed€him€to€replace€the€bottles€with€rocks,€to€return€the€bag€to€the€side€of€the€road,€and€to€keep€the€bag€under€surveillance.Ì ëòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÓ  ÓÓVL°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:VÓÔ€XXÔ€Ô€ôôÔà àIn€1994,€the€Department€of€Correctionððs€policy€defining€disciplinary€offenses€included€a€separate€offense€for€ð ðViolation€of€State€Law€(VSL)ðð€and€defined€this€offense€as€ð ð[a]ny€violation€of€T.C.A.€not€specifically€addressed€in€this€policy.ðð€€Tenn.€Depððt€of€Corr.,€Policy€Index€No.€502.05€IV.VVV.Ì ¯òòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÓ  ÓÓVL°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:VÓÔ€XXÔ€Ô€ôôÔà àThe€Court€specifically€declined€to€require€that€prisoners€charged€with€disciplinary€infractions€be€afforded€the€right€of€confrontation€and€cross-examination€and€the€right€to€counsel.€€òòWolff€v.€McDonaldóó,€418€U.S.€at€567-570,€94€S.Ct.€at€2980-82.€€Ì òòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÓ  ÓÓVL°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:VÓÔ€XXÔ€Ô€ôôÔà àòòE.g.óó€Uniform€Disciplinary€Procedures,€Tenn.€Depððt€of€Corr.,€Policy€Index€No.€502.01€(Mar.€1,€2001).ÌÑ À ÑÑ H ÑÓ  ÓÓVL°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:VÓÔ€îîÔÔ€îîÔÔ  ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌAT€NASHVILLEÔ€¼¼ÔÌAssigned€on€Briefs€August€2,€2001ÌÔ€XXÔÌÔ€¼¼Ôò òCEDRIC€FRANKLIN€v.€TENNESSEE€DEPARTMENT€OF€CORRECTIONÔ€XXÔó óÌÌò òAppeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÌNo.€00-2094-I€€€€€€Irvin€H.€Kilcrease,€Jr.,€ChancellorÌÌÌÌÌNo.€M2001-00279-COA-R3-CV€-€Filed€November€8,€2001ÌÌÌó óÌÓ  ÓòòÌWilliam€C.€Koch,€Jr.óó,€J.,€concurring.ÌÌà àThis€appeal€focuses€on€the€type€of€notice€that€prisoners€charged€with€disciplinary€infractions€must€receive.€€While€I€agree€with€the€results€of€the€majorityððs€opinion,€I€write€separately€to€emphasize€that€prisoners€are€constitutionally€entitled€to€advance€written€notice€of€the€claimed€disciplinary€infraction€notwithstanding€the€potential€punishment€they€are€facing.€€In€this€case,€the€prisoner€received€minimally€adequate€notice.ÌÌÓ  Óò òI.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àIn€August€1993,€Cedric€Franklin€was€indicted€for€one€count€of€first€degree€murder,€one€count€of€first€degree€felony€murder,€and€one€count€of€a€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€In€January€1994,€he€pled€guilty€to€one€count€of€second€degree€murder€and€one€count€of€especially€aggravated€robbery€and€received€concurrent€sentences€of€35€and€20€years.€€During€the€events€relevant€to€this€case,€Mr.€Franklin€was€incarcerated€at€the€West€Tennessee€State€Penitentiary.ÌÌà àMr.€Franklin€and€another€prisoner,€Robert€Brown,€were€operating€a€tractor€outside€the€prison€on€April€20,€2000.€€At€some€point,€they€stopped€the€tractor,€and€Mr.€Brown€instructed€Mr.€Franklin€to€pick€up€a€black€plastic€bag€containing€rocks€that€was€laying€on€the€side€of€the€public€road.€€There€is€some€evidence€that€the€prisoners€believed€that€the€bag€contained€bottles€of€alcoholic€beverages.× ƒ ××  ×€€Messrs.€Franklin€and€Brown€continued€on€their€way€to€the€prisonððs€recycling€center€where€they€were€met€by€another€prisoner,€Gary€Reeves.€€At€this€point,€several€corrections€officers€accosted€the€three€prisoners.€€When€the€officers€asked€for€the€plastic€bag,€Mr.€Franklin€stated€that€he€did€not€know€where€it€was.€€One€of€the€officers€eventually€found€the€bag€in€another€part€of€the€recycling€center.ÌÌà àMr.€Franklin€and€the€other€two€prisoners€were€charged€with€ð ðviolation€of€state€lawðð× ƒ ××  ×€and€were€placed€in€administrative€segregation€pending€a€disciplinary€hearing.€€The€written€disciplinary€report€provided€to€Mr.€Franklin€on€April€20,€2000,€gave€the€following€recitation€of€the€facts€upon€which€the€ð ðviolation€of€state€lawðð€disciplinary€infraction€was€based:ÌÌÓ ° ÓÓ  ÓÓ ° ÓOn€04/20/2000€at€approx.€7:00€AM€I€CO€[Corrections€Officer]€Ring€was€driving€down€the€Chicken€House€Road€when€I€noticed€a€black€plastic€bag€lying€on€the€side€of€the€road.€€Upon€investigating€I€found€that€the€bag€contained€4€plastic€bottles€of€clear€liquid€and€1€bottle€of€a€amber€color€liquid.€€When€the€bottles€were€opened€they€had€a€strong€smell€of€alcohol.€€I€then€took€the€bottles€to€the€sally€port€and€notified€Lt.€Miller.€€Lt.€Miller€took€charge€of€the€bottles€and€had€me€replace€€them€with€rocks€and€return€the€bag€where€I€found€it.€€Sgt.€K.€Boyd€was€watching€the€bag€and€notified€via€radio€that€inmate€Cedric€Franklin€#230639€and€inmate€Robert€Brown€#153069€were€on€a€tractor€pulling€a€cart€and€had€stopped€and€inmate€Franklin€got€off€and€picked€up€the€bag.€€The€tractor€proceeded€toward€the€recycle€area.€€When€inmate€Gary€Reeves€#217481€came€out€of€the€recycle€building€heading€toward€the€tractor€I€stopped€the€tractor€and€asked€inmate€Franklin€where€the€bag€was.€€He€stated€he€didnððt€have€it.€€Sgt.€Boyd€located€the€bag€by€the€cardboard€area.€€Inmate€then€made€the€statement€that€inmate€Reeves€had€told€him€to€pick€it€up.€€Inmate€Franklin,€inmate€Reeves€and€inmate€Brown€are€charged€with€violation€of€state€law€and€placed€in€unit€2€pending€disciplinary€hearing.ÌÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÌà àAt€the€April€25,€2000€hearing,€a€three-person€disciplinary€board€heard€the€testimony€of€Mr.€Franklin,€Officer€Ring,€and€Sergeant€Boyd€and€received€into€evidence€pictures€of€the€five€bottles€that€had€been€discovered€in€the€black€plastic€bag.€€Thereafter,€the€board€found€Mr.€Franklin€guilty€of€ð ðviolating€state€law.ðð€€As€a€result€of€his€conviction,€Mr.€Franklin€received€ten€days€in€punitive€segregation,€the€loss€of€his€trustee€status,€and€the€loss€of€his€prison€job.€€Both€the€warden€and€the€Commissioner€of€Correction€affirmed€the€disciplinary€boardððs€action.ÌÌÓ  Óò òII.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àMore€than€twenty-five€years€ago,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€prescribed€the€minimum€procedural€due€process€rights€of€prisoners€facing€prison€disciplinary€proceedings.€€The€Court€stated€that€prisoners€were€entitled€to€(1)€written€notice€of€the€claimed€infraction€at€least€twenty-four€hours€prior€to€the€disciplinary€hearing,€(2)€a€hearing€before€a€sufficiently€impartial€body,€(3)€a€limited€right€to€call€witnesses€and€present€documentary€evidence,€and€(4)€a€written€statement€of€the€fact-finders€as€to€the€evidence€relied€upon€and€the€reasons€for€the€disciplinary€action.€€òòWolff€v.€McDonnellóó,€418€U.S.€539,€563-66,€94€S.€Ct.€2963,€2978-79€(1974).× ƒ ××  ×€€These€minimum€rights€exist€independent€of€any€further€expansion€of€procedural€safeguards€that€might€be€made€available€by€statute,€regulation,€or€policy.ÌÌà àThe€òòWolff€v.€McDonnell€óódecision€did€not€prevent€prisons€and€jails€from€expanding€the€procedural€safeguards€in€prison€disciplinary€proceedings€or€from€providing€details€regarding€how€the€constitutionally€required€minimum€safeguards€would€be€provided.€€In€fact,€during€the€past€twenty-five€years,€prisons€in€Tennessee€and€elsewhere€have€enacted€policies€and€rules€defining€the€procedural€steps€in€a€prison€disciplinary€proceeding.× ƒ ××  ×€€It€is€not€uncommon€that€these€procedures€go€beyond€the€minimum€procedural€due€process€requirements€identified€in€òòWolff€v.€McDonnellóó.€€For€example,€even€though€the€Court€had€declined€to€extend€to€prisoners€the€right€to€counsel,€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction€permits€attorneys€to€be€present€at€disciplinary€proceedings.€€Tenn.€Depððt€of€Corr.,€Policy€Index€No.€502.01€VI.E.2.h.ÌÌà àDuring€the€twenty€years€following€the€òòWolff€v.€McDonnell€óódecision,€the€state€and€federal€courts€were€deluged€with€prisoner€lawsuits€complaining€of€due€process€deprivations€for€even€the€most€minor€departures€from€prison€disciplinary€procedures.€€In€1995,€to€stem€the€tide€of€these€sorts€of€suits,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€revisited€prison€disciplinary€proceedings€to€determine€whether€prisoners€had€a€constitutionally€protected€liberty€interest€in€the€procedures€prescribed€in€the€statutes,€regulations,€or€policies€governing€prison€disciplinary€proceedings.€€The€Court€held€that€the€procedural€rights€afforded€by€statutes,€regulations,€or€policies€rose€to€the€level€of€a€constitutionally€protected€liberty€interest€only€when€the€proceeding€has€imposed€ð ðatypical€and€significant€hardship€on€the€inmate€in€relation€to€the€ordinary€aspects€of€prison€life.ðð€€òòSandin€v.€Conneróó,€515€U.S.€472,€484,€115€S.€Ct.€2293,€2300€(1995).ÌÌà àIn€the€wake€of€the€òòSandin€v.€Conner€óódecision,€it€is€important€to€recognize€that€the€course€of€a€prison€disciplinary€proceeding€is€shaped€by€two€legal€forces.€€First,€it€is€shaped€by€the€minimum€procedural€due€process€requirements€imposed€by€the€federal€and€state€constitutions.€€These€are€the€procedures€recognized€in€òòWolff€v.€McDonnellóó.€€Second,€it€is€shaped€by€the€statutes,€rules,€and€procedures€dictating€how€the€discipline€of€prisoners€should€be€carried€out.€€The€òòSandin€v.€Conner€óódecision€addresses€the€latter,€not€the€former.€€Accordingly,€prisoners€facing€disciplinary€proceedings€are€entitled€to€(1)€timely€written€notice€prior€to€the€disciplinary€hearing,€(2)€a€sufficiently€impartial€hearing€body,€(3)€a€limited€right€to€present€evidence,€and€(4)€a€written€statement€of€the€evidence€relied€upon€and€the€reasons€for€the€disciplinary€action,€regardless€of€whether€they€are€facing€punishment€that€is€atypical€and€significant€in€relation€to€the€ordinary€aspects€of€prison€life.ÌÌÓ  Óò òIII.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àOur€sole€task€in€this€case€is€to€determine€whether€Mr.€Franklin€received€minimally€adequate€notice€of€the€disciplinary€charges€he€was€facing.€Mr.€Franklin€asserts€that€he€did€not€because€the€written€notice€he€received€on€April€20,€2000,€did€not€cite€the€specific€state€statute€that€he€and€his€two€confederates€allegedly€violated€when€they€picked€up€the€black€plastic€bag€and€carried€it€to€the€prison€recycling€facility.ÌÌà àAs€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€noted,€the€purpose€of€providing€a€prisoner€with€timely€written€notice€of€disciplinary€charges€is€to€enable€him€or€her€to€marshal€the€facts€in€his€or€her€favor€and€to€prepare€a€defense.€€òòWolff€v.€McDonnellóó,€418€U.S.€at€564,€94€S.€Ct.€at€2979.€€To€be€constitutionally€sufficient,€the€notice€must€adequately€inform€the€person€to€whom€the€notice€is€directed€of€the€nature€of€the€proceedings€and€the€nature€of€the€matters€to€be€addressed.€€Due€process€requires€that€the€notice€must,€under€all€the€circumstances,€apprise€all€interested€persons€of€the€pending€action€in€order€to€afford€them€an€opportunity€to€present€their€case.€€òòBrown€v.€Tennessee€Ì